Department of Theatre Arts Bylaws

Approved: June 16, 2003

SECTION I. Introduction

A. Purpose: The Department faculty seeks to promote and sustain teaching, scholarship, and service, and to participate fully in the governance of the College of Liberal Arts and Wright State University.

B. Terminology:

Bargaining Unit Faculty refers to all bargaining unit faculty members in the Department of Theatre Arts.

Staff refers to all unclassified staff and faculty associates in the Department of Theatre Arts.

Chair refers to the chair of the Department of Theatre Arts.

Area refers to the four faculty-coordinated areas of Acting/Musical Theatre, Dance, Design/Technology/Stage Management, and Motion Pictures. (Coordinators are bargaining unit faculty appointed by the Department Chair.)

SECTION II. Voting

A. All Bargaining Unit Faculty as defined above have voting rights to the extent covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement and as defined in these bylaws.

B. Bargaining Unit Faculty welcome ideas or contributions from any staff and non-tenure track faculty on any issues.

C. Any Bargaining Unit Faculty member may ask for a secret ballot vote on any voting issue.

SECTION III. Full Department Meetings

A. Convening and Frequency of Meetings

1. The Chair customarily convenes department meetings. Any Bargaining Unit Faculty or Staff member may convene a meeting upon obtaining the signatures of a majority of Bargaining Unit Faculty and submitting these signatures to the department chair two weeks before the date of the proposed meeting.

2. The first meeting of each academic year shall be held after September 1^st and before the first day of classes. Regular meetings are to be scheduled and held at least once each quarter during the academic year.

3. The Chair should make every effort to publish the schedule of faculty meeting dates for the entire academic year by the first faculty meeting of the year. If additional meetings are added subsequently, there should be one full week's notice. Meetings should not be cancelled, except in the case of illness or an emergency, unless a majority of Area Coordinators agree; then, the cancellation notice should be posted and communicated via e-mail, ideally with at least two days notice.

B. Agenda

1. A meeting agenda shall be prepared by the convener (usually the Chair) and shall be distributed to all faculty and staff members at least one full day prior to the meeting. Any Bargaining Unit Faculty or Staff may place an item on the agenda by contacting the convener at least two full days before the scheduled meeting.

2. The agenda may include items of discussion and deliberation and items for faculty vote. Whenever possible, items purely informational in nature should be communicated by other means, such as e-mail.

3. At the first meeting of the academic year, committee membership must be decided in accordance with the procedures required in Section X, and the general concerns, issues, and strategies of the year are to be discussed.

4. At the final scheduled meeting of each quarter, all committees must report on their activity to the general faculty and staff. These committee reports shall be the first order of business.

5. At the last scheduled meeting of spring quarter, an election must be held for the open seats on the Promotion, Tenure, and Retention Committee.

C. Conduct of Meetings

Department meetings shall be conducted by the convener of the meeting or by a designated faculty member. All faculty and staff members are expected to attend department meetings. Meetings need not follow Robert’s Rules of Order but should be conducted in a manner allowing all viewpoints and opinions to be aired. The concepts of efficiency, courtesy, collegiality and free speech shall be paramount in the conduct of meetings.

D. Minutes of Meetings

The department secretary shall record the minutes of each meeting. In the absence of the secretary, the convener shall designate a temporary recording secretary. The minutes shall be distributed to all Bargaining Unit Faculty within one week following the meeting, and shall be approved or amended at the next regular department meeting.

SECTION IV. Procedures and Criteria for Annual Evaluation of Bargaining Unit Faculty

All Bargaining Unit Faculty are to be evaluated yearly by the Chair, receiving a written copy of that evaluation in a timely manner. The Procedure and Criteria are as follows:

A. Procedure

1. Materials for Evaluation: In preparation for the annual evaluation, Bargaining Unit Faculty members each will submit to the Chair a report of their teaching, scholarship and service during the preceding year.

   Untenured Bargaining Unit Faculty will submit a summary of their accomplishments in teaching, scholarship, and service for the preceding year to both the Chair and the PTR Committee. Material used to evaluate untenured faculty members must include both the written and numerical information from the Student Evaluation Forms and a written Peer Evaluation of Teaching.

   Tenured assistant and associate Bargaining Unit Faculty will submit a cumulative summary of their accomplishments in teaching, scholarship, and service to the PTR Committee every year unless the individual requests that the evaluation be conducted once every three years. Material used to evaluate tenured faculty members may also include a written Peer Evaluation of Teaching. Tenured faculty members are only required to submit the comment portion of student teaching evaluations as part of their annual evaluation by the Chair, but may choose to include the numerical data as well. Tenured faculty who choose not to submit numerical data from student evaluations will not in any way be penalized for this decision.

   Tenured and untenured Bargaining Unit Faculty may also choose to include additional material for evaluation such as a response to student evaluations, syllabi or other course material, a response to a peer evaluation of teaching, and any other material or information that may assist the Chair in assigning a rating as described in Section IV-B below.

2. Peer Evaluation of Teaching: All untenured Bargaining Unit Faculty will undergo annual peer evaluation of teaching, and others may request a peer evaluation of their teaching. The Bargaining Unit Faculty of each Area will meet annually as a committee of the whole, preparatory of any peer evaluation to take place, to discuss issues that pertain to teaching, curriculum, and student learning. Topics may include, but are not limited to sufficiency of teaching, mentoring, and advising; development and refinement of curriculum; currency of the Faculty (in relation to course goals and content); relevance of the coursework to student need and to the state of the field; retention of students; faculty research into teaching methodology; success in teaching; individual efforts in pursuit of teaching growth; teaching problems or student/peer complaints; adequacy of teaching resources, equipment and facilities; contributions to the teaching mission of the area and department.

   All Bargaining Unit Faculty undergoing peer review should submit to their area coordinator syllabi, teaching materials, unsolicited student comments, achievements of graduates in their chosen field, and any other material they feel is an indicator of successful teaching. Bargaining Unit Faculty must also produce any other available materials requested by the area coordinator for use in the peer review and allow internal or external classroom observation.

   The area coordinator or a designee will write an evaluation of the Bargaining Unit Faculty member’s teaching. (When an area coordinator undergoes peer evaluation of teaching, the evaluator will be selected by the other area coordinators.) This evaluation will be generated from all available material and the group discussion, and will cover the previous year’s performance and any suggestions for improvement. This written peer review should include an account of the evidence used to arrive at the assessment. This evaluation will be submitted to the Bargaining Unit Faculty member, the department Chair, and the Chair of the PTR Committee.

3. Annual Evaluation: Bargaining Unit Faculty will review the integers assigned for evaluation by the Department Chair and the reasons given for their assignment. If faculty members agree with the evaluation, they will sign a copy of the evaluation and return it to the department chair. If faculty members disagree with the evaluation, they may prepare a rebuttal, which should be submitted to the Chair. This rebuttal must be attached to the evaluation (per contract) and forwarded to all entities who will see the evaluation.

4. Weighting of Areas for Annual Evaluation: The Chair will generally use the following weights to calculate a faculty member’s overall annual average: teaching, 40%; scholarship, 30%; service, 30%. The Chair may assign other percentages in response to unusual work assignments, as part of discipline pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement, or to correct a pattern of substandard performance extending for more than one year.

B. Criteria for Assignment of Merit

1. Teaching: Teaching activities include creation of course materials, presentation of course content, classroom management, evaluation of students, advising and mentoring students, supervising and/or advising student projects and productions, course revision and development, maintaining currency in one’s teaching field, and developing and maintaining a broad teaching range. Any quantitative evaluation of teaching must be flexible, taking into account available teaching evaluation data that demonstrate a) historical differences among different areas of the department, which may reflect different critical standards on the part of students from different disciplines; b) differences between courses with large enrollments and those with small enrollments; c) differences between courses comprised of advanced majors and courses comprised of undergraduate majors and/or many non-majors; d) differences between “workshop” and “process” oriented courses and “lecture” courses; and e) classes which are significantly used as “gatekeeper” courses to limit the number of majors allowed to continue in the program. This quantitative evaluation of faculty is best done within contexts which take into account historical trends in the department over many years. It is the faculty member's responsibility to provide the Chair with an argument, supported by adequate documentation and data, demonstrating that these differences should be factored into the faculty member's teaching evaluation. It is also the faculty member's obligation to provide the Chair with necessary evidence and appropriate documentation to make an assessment of teaching within the following categories:

   To receive a rating of EXTRAORDINARY, a faculty member must show that the courses taught include content and student demands that far exceed minimal curricular expectations; that the syllabi are clear, reasonable, and comprehensive; that student evaluation comments, and numerical scores, if provided, suggest students have found the courses particularly engaging and stimulating; and that new courses are being developed and regularly taught courses are being continually revised; or the equivalent. Other evidence, such as peer evaluations, student letters, or subsequent student career achievement, can also indicate extraordinary teaching.

   To receive a rating of OUTSTANDING, a faculty member must show that the courses taught include content and student demands beyond minimal curricular expectations; that the syllabi are clear, reasonable, and comprehensive; that student evaluation comments, and numerical scores, if provided, suggest students have found the faculty member has been effective, creative, competent, and required significant work from the student; and that new courses are being developed and regularly taught courses are being continually revised; or the equivalent. Other evidence, such as peer evaluations, student letters, or subsequent student career achievement, can also indicate outstanding teaching.

   To receive a rating of MERITORIOUS, a faculty member must have positive teaching evaluations as demonstrated through students' comments, showing student achievement and engagement, and no significant pattern indicating problems in the areas of efficacy, creativity, or competency.

   To receive a rating of ADEQUATE, a faculty member would receive teaching evaluations comments that demonstrate acceptable but unremarkable student achievement and engagement, and a significant pattern indicating some problems in the areas of efficiency, creativity, or competency; and a passable peer evaluation of teaching.

   To receive a rating of UNSATISFACTORY, there would have to be minimal evidence of good teaching as defined above. In addition, symptoms of unsatisfactory teaching may include frequent or characteristic examples of the following: missed or shortened classes (without informing the department or without adequate explanations), persistent and valid student complaints, erratic classroom behavior, failure to provide students syllabi and/or feedback, failure to be available to students and advisees, refusal to assign an adequate workload, irresponsible or unprofessional conduct with or in the presence of students in a university setting.

2. Scholarship and Creative Activity: All Bargaining Unit Faculty must contribute to the mission of the department and the university. It is expected that faculty will also contribute to the regional and national presence of the department. Scholarship can include, but is not limited to traditional academic scholarship activities such as the writing of books, articles, and reviews which are published in recognized venues; the development and implementation of workshops or serving as panelist, moderator, or lecturer for professional organizations; the editing of professional journals; the adjudication or review of outside performances or texts for professional organizations; the receipt of internal or external grants; and/or the equivalent of these examples. Scholarship can also include a wide panoply of creative artistic endeavors traversing the entire spectrum of the arts, including creative writing, criticism, directing, musical direction, acting, dancing, choreography, stage combat, composing, design, film-making, performance coaching, artistic exhibition, curating, photography, producing, artistic management, and production management.

   The degree of accomplishment or creative excellence (as recognized by peers and qualified critics) and the degree of international, national, or regional prominence of any of these activities can affect the worth an activity is given in rating a faculty member’s scholarship and creative activity. All faculty are encouraged to explore scholarship activity within the entire spectrum of theatre arts and its related activities. Creative activity which takes place off-campus shall be valued the same as equivalent creative scholarship which occurs on-campus. Certain scholarly efforts which require many years of effort, such as researching and publishing a book or producing a feature-length film, to name just two examples, should be awarded credit beyond the single year in which the project is published or released. For faculty who embark on longer projects, the Chair should take into account clear evidence of work in progress.

   To be eligible for the higher rankings of EXTRAORDINARY or OUTSTANDING, note that it is the responsibility of faculty when filling out their annual activity reports to provide evidence attesting to the quality of their scholarship.

   To receive a rating of EXTRAORDINARY, a faculty member must show a very high level of achievement in traditional or creative scholarship. To demonstrate achievement at this level in scholarship, faculty must provide evidence that their work has won a major national/international award or grant, received positive review at the national/international level, or been juried favorably by peers of state, national, or international stature. The work must be a significant work for which the individual is primarily responsible: major scholarship, rather than minor scholarship--for instance, directing a play, rather than coaching selected actors within a play; designing costumes, rather than working on a costume construction crew; editing a feature film, rather than syncing up rushes; acting a central role, rather than working as an understudy; choreographing an original piece, rather than dancing a minor role; or the equivalent of these examples. If written scholarship, the scholarship must be more substantial than one traditional refereed article and/or must be the recipient of national or international honor.

   To receive a rating of OUTSTANDING, a faculty member must show a high level of achievement in traditional or creative scholarship. To demonstrate achievement at this level in scholarship, faculty must provide evidence that their work has won a major regional award or grant, received positive review at the regional level, or been juried favorably by peers of regional stature in southwest Ohio. However, to receive this rating, the faculty member should also demonstrate strong evidence of ongoing and continuing scholarship, which can include minor scholarship as well as major. Work done exclusively at the local level requires external evaluation to be eligible for this rating. If written scholarship in the form of a refereed article or its equivalent, it must be published in a venue which receives a national audience. A faculty member may also receive this rating by serving successfully as Artistic Director of the Department of Theatre Arts or as Production Manager for the entire mainstage season.

   To receive a rating of MERITORIOUS, a faculty member must show clear evidence of ongoing traditional or creative scholarship within categories defined above, both major and minor. A typical example might be directing a mainstage play as well as also working as an occasional actor in plays directed by others; or working as cinematographer on a short film, while simultaneously collaborating on other film projects; or the equivalent of these examples. Note that the scholarship examples given here are eligible for higher ranking if the faculty member can provide external evaluation of value, as described in the two categories above.

   To receive a rating of ADEQUATE, a faculty member must show some activity in traditional or creative scholarship, although it may be in scholarship that qualifies as minor, as defined above, or as major, but without any context of ongoing, focused achievement. Further, a faculty member must show some evidence of keeping current with scholarship in an appropriate professional field.

   To receive a rating of UNSATISFACTORY, a faculty member would have to show minimal evidence of traditional or creative scholarship. Further, symptoms of unsatisfactory performance could include demonstrations of incompetence in matters of professional expertise, a failure to keep current with scholarship in an appropriate professional field, a period of four or more years without scholarly output, and refusal to respond to mentoring or to develop a research plan, if requested.

3. Service: Full participation in faculty affairs is essential to the growth and advancement of a faculty member. All Department of Theatre Arts faculty are expected to serve on committees at the departmental, college and/or university level. As well, there is a variety of different service expectations for each Area:

   Acting/Musical Theatre Area: Service includes, but is not limited to: professional service, such as consulting, attendance at training seminars and workshops, and holding office in professional societies; special projects, recruitment, retention or alumni activities; and community service, such as holding a leadership role in civic and public organizations, guest lecturing at community events, and/or volunteering at public schools, or the equivalent.

   Dance Area: Dance Faculty are expected to contribute to the functioning and growth of the area and to the field in a variety of ways. These activities include, but are not limited to; attendance at area meetings; involvement in annual evaluations of dance majors; mentoring of students in their creative works; recruiting; maintaining a working relationship with the professional dance organizations in the local area; and participating in professional organizations at the regional and national level.

   Design/Technology/Stage Management Area: Design/Technology faculty are expected to contribute to the functioning and growth of the area in ways most appropriate to the individual faculty member. These activities include, but are not limited to: attendance at area meetings; involvement in quarterly and/or annual evaluations of design/technology majors; advising on equipment acquisition and repair; and taking on whatever projects may become necessary for the area to function successfully. Design/ Technology Faculty are also expected to work on departmental productions. This also includes a “hands-on” component; whether supervising an electrics crew, painting scenery, pulling costumes from storage, etc. This “hands-on” component is an important part of training students, keeping the faculty active and current with the production process, and ensuring that the individual’s area of responsibility is completed in a timely manner and with a high level of success. The specific responsibilities may vary from production to production and will be established on a yearly basis.

   Motion Pictures Area: Within the Motion Pictures area, all faculty are expected to commit significant service to the program itself in ways most appropriate to the individual faculty member. These activities include, but are not limited to: advising on equipment acquisition and repair; attending to facilities issues; contributing via attendance at motion pictures faculty meetings; contributing to the annual evaluations of freshmen and sophomore motion pictures majors; giving input to production students on their films and their films’ entries into festivals; responding in a timely way to Coordinator requests; and taking on whatever projects may become necessary for the area to function successfully.

   To be eligible for the higher rankings of EXTRAORDINARY or OUTSTANDING, note that it is the responsibility of faculty when filling out their annual activity reports to provide evidence attesting to the quality of their service. Service efforts both outside and inside the university are both eligible for consideration. The Department's unique use of area co-ordinators provides those faculty members with additional and crucial duties well beyond the scope of service for other faculty, and this service should be considered as such when an area co-ordinator's overall quality of service is judged.

   To receive a rating of EXTRAORDINARY, a faculty member must first fulfill all requirements for the OUTSTANDING rating shown below. Additionally, the faculty member must demonstrate a very high level of service activities exhibiting a significant leadership position with tangible outcomes, such as chairing an important University committee, or holding office in a national professional society, or raising a significant sum of money for the department enabling a significant, major increase in department programs, or other equivalent examples which show similar demonstrable impact.

   To receive a rating of OUTSTANDING, a faculty member must show a high level of service activity, not necessarily in a leadership capacity. Service done to qualify for this ranking must be demonstrated to be vital, sustained, and successful, with tangible outcomes relating to the successful continuation of extant processes or institutions. However, to receive this rating, the faculty member must demonstrate evidence of ongoing and continuing service in at least five areas; such as membership on three or more committees--whether department, college, or university (perhaps, but not necessarily as chair of one of these committees), combined with two examples of outside service.

   To receive a rating of MERITORIOUS, a faculty member must show a good level of service activity, not necessarily in a leadership capacity. To receive this rating, a faculty member must demonstrate evidence of ongoing and continuing service in at least three areas; such as membership in two committees, combined with one example of outside service.

   To receive a rating of ADEQUATE, a faculty member must show some service activity in relevant areas. To receive this rating, a faculty member must show service activities in at least one area, generally without any context of ongoing, focused achievement.

   To receive a rating of UNSATISFACTORY, a faculty member would have to show no or minimal evidence of relevant service.

SECTION V. Procedures and Criteria for Promotion and

Tenure

It is recognized that the Doctor of Philosophy or the Master of Fine Arts degrees are both appropriate terminal degrees for theatre arts faculty: It is expected that faculty will have a Ph.D., an MFA or equivalent significant professional qualifications to be considered for tenure. It is also recognized, however, that occasionally theatre arts professionals may achieve a sufficient level of expertise through the practice of their crafts (acting, directing, choreography, designing, film making, and so forth) and through non-degree related training to form the equivalent body of knowledge and experience to equal an MFA or Ph.D. degree. This qualification shall be determined through examination of the faculty member’s curriculum vitae, samples of scholarship, classroom teaching, and other materials which may be helpful or necessary in assessing significant professional qualification.

A. Criteria for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure

Before consideration for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor with tenure, an Assistant Professor will ordinarily accumulate at least five years of full-time college teaching and will ordinarily serve as an Assistant Professor at Wright State University for at least two years.

1. Effectiveness in teaching, demonstrated annually through ongoing performance and through materials turned in by faculty candidates for promotion and tenure.

   Candidates must demonstrate competence in professional areas and a growing mastery in special subjects. Each candidate for promotion and tenure must produce, as part of the promotion and tenure document and its appendices: a) summary of student evaluation numbers, b) grade distributions for each course taught, c) all chair, peer, and PTR evaluations, d) all syllabi and student handouts, and e) any other materials chosen by the candidate, including testimonials or other documents relating to teacher effectiveness.

2. Significant contributions to the discipline and growth in professional development.

   This may include appropriate professional affiliations and/or other evidence of professional competence, as demonstrated through specific performance and achievement, and revealed on the candidate’s vita.

3. A successful and effective program of ongoing scholarship.

   Scholarship can include traditional forms of research and publication as well as creative scholarship. To attain promotion and tenure, the quality of the scholarship must be considered and needs to be demonstrated by the candidate. For traditional scholarship, there should be significant publication in professionally recognized journals, which allow the work to receive a national audience and make some impact on the discipline. For artistic scholarship, there should be professional recognition of excellence on at least the regional level, and/or tangible accomplishments within the department that can be proven to be outstanding and up to rigorous critical standards. Note, too, that some candidates may base their application on some combination of traditional and artistic scholarship.

   For artistic scholarship, quality can always be ascertained by the presence of national or regional awards, national-level reviews, and/or peer reviews by professionals within the field, such as outside letters of evaluation, which the candidate has the responsibility to demonstrate. Because stage productions done at Wright State University cannot easily or with financial feasibility be sent to external professionals for peer review, those basing their applications on this kind of scholarship have the responsibility (in coordination with the Chair) to arrange peer review, through the making of videotapes, through invited adjudications, through the receipt of awards, through the receiving of other artistic jobs outside the realm of assigned Wright State University work, or other similar persuasive evidence, to demonstrate the value of their efforts. An ongoing record of working on scholarship only for the theatre season, in the absence of objective critical evaluation of that scholarship, is not an adequate basis for promotion and tenure. The evaluation of artistic scholarship cannot be absolutely quantifiable and requires that all parties evaluating the candidate exercise careful judgment.

   Because of the collaborative nature of theatre arts, those working within the traditions of performance must also show a firm commitment to collegial artistic collaboration; and the department expects those faculty whose scholarship falls within the department’s seasons to amass a demonstrable record of collegial and responsible artistic collaboration, since tenure inaugurates a potential lifetime artistic collaboration with peers.

   For scholarly work, a candidate should complete four substantial articles, chapters, or other publications in or accepted by reputable peer-reviewed academic journals or books; or the equivalent; and a pattern of ongoing scholarly activity. Substantial refers to work which meets professional standards for depth and breadth of coverage and reflects current theory and practices within specific disciplines. “Equivalent” refers both to effort and to the professional importance of the scholarship. For instance, an invited article to an important book may not be traditionally peer-reviewed, but is the equivalent; similarly, a published book may easily be the equivalent of four articles.

   For artistic work, a candidate must demonstrate a pattern of ongoing scholarly activity. For a director, this could mean directing at least one play a year, whether for the departmental season or off-campus at an appropriate professional venue. For a designer, this could mean designing at least two major designs a year, whether for the departmental season or off-campus at an appropriate professional venue. For a filmmaker, this could mean producing one feature film or three short films. For a choreographer, this could mean choreographing one major musical and/or one piece of original dance choreography every year. For an actor, this could mean two major roles a year, either for the departmental season or other appropriate professional venue. As well, in addition to these major scholarship efforts, candidates should also demonstrate a pattern of ongoing, subsidiary efforts: a director may give audience talk-backs or assist colleagues with staging, a designer may show theatre designs in a gallery, a filmmaker might provide crew work on another director’s film, a choreographer might chair a national dance panel, an actor might coach dialects.

   The candidate must provide copies of all publications, as well as any letters indicating acceptance of works not yet published. To the degree it is possible, candidates should also provide the most tangible evidence of their artistic work. The candidate will also provide a list of at least five potential outside reviewers qualified to evaluate the quality of his/her work. The PTR committee will then solicit letters from at least three of these reviewers. If the PTR Committee does not select three reviewers from the list provided, the candidate will be asked to provide additional names. Reviewers should be scholars or professionals qualified to assess the candidate’s scholarly contribution to his/her field. The reviewers’ comments will be used to help gauge whether the candidate’s artistic and/or scholarly work meets the standards of quality described above.

4. A record of appropriate and successful service. Success in service should include at a minimum the following, or their clear equivalents: responding to requests for Faculty Activity Reports and so forth in a timely fashion; participating regularly in department faculty meetings; attending and participating in commencement ceremonies regularly as required by the collective bargaining agreement; serving on two or more important department committees; serving on two or more other department committees; serving on two or more college or university committees or otherwise demonstrating involvement in governance outside the department and/or service to the candidate’s discipline outside the realm of the department.

B. Criteria for promotion to Full Professor

Before being considered for promotion to the rank of Professor, an Associate Professor will normally complete at least six years at that rank. Time in rank alone will never be sufficient criterion for promotion to Professor, however. The candidate for promotion to Professor must show that he or she has been productive and successful at a level beyond that required for promotion to Associate Professor.

1. Outstanding ability as a teacher, measured over a number of years through successful student and (where available) peer evaluations; complete mastery of the candidate’s special areas of interest; a grasp of considerable breadth in the general subject area; demonstrable achievements by former students. Each candidate for promotion to full Professor must produce, as part of the promotion document and its appendices: a) all chair, peer and PTR evaluations since the last promotion, b) all syllabi and student handouts since the last promotion, c) any other materials chosen by the candidate, including testimonials or other documents relating to teacher effectiveness, curriculum development, and the maintenance of high teaching standards.

2. Exceptional contributions to the field with the emphasis on the quality and impact of the candidate’s work and continuation of effort. These contributions may include appropriate professional affiliations and/or other evidence of professional competence. Exceptional quality in scholarship, marked by a continuation at the same level or higher of the annual scholarly output required for promotion to associate professor which is detailed earlier. For artistic scholarship: professional recognition of excellence at the national or international level; or a sustained pattern of exemplary effort and accomplishments within the department. For traditional scholarship: at least one scholarly book published or a significant body of six peer-reviewed articles (since the last promotion) or equivalent, demonstrating a status as a scholar of national or international reputation; or a sustained pattern of exceptional effort and accomplishments within the department.

   The candidate will provide a list of at least five potential outside reviewers qualified to evaluate the quality of his/her work. The PTR committee will then solicit letters from at least three of these reviewers. If the PTR Committee does not select three reviewers from the list provided, the candidate will be asked to provide additional names. Reviewers should be scholars or professionals qualified to assess the candidate’s scholarly contribution to his/her field. The reviewers’ comments will be used to help gauge whether the candidate’s artistic and/or scholarly work meets the standards of quality described above.

3. A record of excellent service, engaged and ongoing, with clear outcomes. To be eligible for promotion to Professor, a faculty member must show that he/she has accomplished the following, or their equivalents: chaired several important department, college, and/or university committees with significant responsibilities and specific outcomes; taken a leadership role in some crucial aspect of university or department work, such as serving as Artistic Director, Production Manager, or Area Coordinator for at least five years; performed service for professional organizations locally, regionally, or nationally.

SECTION VI. Recruitment Procedures for Full-time Faculty

Positions

A. Search committees for full-time faculty positions will be composed of a majority of Bargaining Unit Faculty selected by the Bargaining Unit Faculty of the department.

B. The Chair will consult with Bargaining Unit Faculty in preparing descriptions of open faculty positions.

C. The credentials of all candidates shall be made available to all Bargaining Unit Faculty before candidates are invited for interviews. All Bargaining Unit Faculty shall have the opportunity to participate in interviewing invited candidates and to give input in the selection and hiring of non-Bargaining Unit Faculty.

D. The bargaining unit faculty in the department will have an opportunity to vote on candidates for faculty appointments, and their recommendations and voting totals will be forwarded to the Dean before a contract is offered.

SECTION VII. Recruitment Policies and Procedures for Unclassified Staff Positions

A. The search committees for unclassified staff shall include Bargaining Unit Faculty.

B. The credentials of all candidates shall be made available to all Bargaining Unit Faculty before candidates are invited for interviews. All Bargaining Unit Faculty and Staff shall have the opportunity to participate in interviewing invited candidates.

SECTION VIII. Evaluation and Selection of the Department

Chair

The Bargaining Unit Faculty realizes that evaluation and selection of the Chair rests with the Dean. Should the Bargaining Unit Faculty have concerns involving the Chair's administration of the department, the Bargaining Unit Faculty have the responsibility to address these concerns to the Chair; if these concerns persist after discussion between Bargaining Unit Faculty and the Chair, the concerns will be addressed to the Dean. To provide the Dean with as much information as possible with which to make an accurate evaluation of the Chair's performance, the Bargaining Unit Faculty can review the chair in annual informal reviews and in formal reviews pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement.

Faculty Participation on the Chair Search Committee

When there is a vacancy in the position of Chair, an ad hoc Chair Search Committee will be formed, comprised of at least a majority of Bargaining Unit Faculty, elected from within that body.

SECTION IX. Selection of the Artistic Director

The Dean appoints the Artistic Director, who shall be either the Department Chair or a tenured bargaining unit faculty member. When there is a vacancy in the position of Artistic Director, the Bargaining Unit Faculty has the responsibility to recommend an Artistic Director. Bargaining Unit Faculty interested in the position must apply by written application and then make a presentation to the department, before a written ballot is taken to determine the outcome of the faculty recommendation. The Bylaws Committee shall prepare the ballots and announce the results. All Bargaining Unit Faculty members are eligible to vote. When the Artistic Director is not the Chair, the Artistic Director must, understandably, work in close collaboration with the Chair.

SECTION X. Committees

There shall be the following standing committees in the department: 1) Promotion, Tenure, and Retention, 2) Professional Development Leave, 3) Curriculum, 4) Budget Review, 5) Scholarship/Awards, 6) Area Coordinators, 7) Bylaws, and 8) Season Selection.

Each standing committee (except the Professional Development Leave and Bylaws committees, which meet only when appropriate), is charged with meeting at least once a quarter during the academic year and reporting back to the entire Faculty in the final scheduled faculty meeting of each quarter. If there is little work to do in a given quarter, the committee meeting can be cursory or via e-mail. Except for the Promotion, Tenure, and Retention Committee, and the Area Coordinators Committee, membership in the standing committees shall be determined at the first fall quarter department meeting through voluntary participation. Coordinators from each Area should arrive at the first faculty meeting with volunteers for each committee selected from among each Area’s Bargaining Unit Faculty. If voluntary participation fails to fill committee membership, the department chair appoints Bargaining Unit Faculty to the committees. Before any of the fall committees shall be considered duly constituted, there should be discussion of their composition and a vote to approve the entire slate of committees. For all standing committees, except the PTR and Season Selection, representation comes from each of the four Areas of the department: Acting/Musical Theatre, Dance, Design/Technology, and Motion Pictures. If any specific area does not have a Bargaining Unit Faculty member, that area will sacrifice its position. The Chair does not automatically serve as an ex officio member of each committee, since committees ultimately offer the Chair recommendations, which may be accepted or rejected. Of course, any committee may, at any time, invite the Chair to attend.

At the first faculty meeting when committee membership is determined, a convener shall be chosen to call the first meeting of that committee, at which time a chair will be elected by the committee. If no one volunteers to convene the committee, the committee shall be convened by the most senior faculty member on the committee.

In addition to the standing committees listed here, ad hoc committees will also need to be created from time to time. Primary responsibility for these appointments rests with the Chair, who should assure that all appropriate areas of the department are represented. However, whenever an ad hoc committee is created for any purpose not covered by procedures elsewhere in this document, the Bargaining Unit Faculty may choose by a majority vote to have the committee membership elected by the Bargaining Unit Faculty. The Chair can also form ad hoc committees with membership of the Chair’s choosing.

In addition to standing committees and ad hoc committees, each of the four Areas of the department conducts important business, including student recruitment, advising, scheduling, and retention, among the Faculty and Staff of its own area. As such, there are inherent committees within each of the four areas, composed of all Faculty and Staff who work within each Area’s curriculum; much of the department’s academic business is conducted by these committees of Area Faculty and Staff. The Coordinator of each area is responsible for scheduling Area meetings and seeing that the business of each Area is carried out efficiently and with as much consensus and collegiality as possible.

Composition, purpose and function of each standing committee shall be as follows:

A. Promotion, Tenure, and Retention Committee

Composition: The Promotion, Tenure, and Retention Committee (PTR) shall be composed of an exact majority of the tenured bargaining unit faculty members of the department. During the Spring Quarter, the bargaining unit faculty members of each of the four academic areas of the department will elect a tenured bargaining unit faculty member (from that area, if one is available) to serve for a two year term. These elections will be staggered across the four areas such that there are two carry-over members each year. In addition, a number of tenured bargaining unit faculty sufficient to make the Committee membership an exact majority of the tenured bargaining unit faculty will be elected for one-year terms by the bargaining unit faculty at the last scheduled spring quarter department meeting. If any member of the PTR Committee resigns, another election will be held to replace that resigned member. The Chair of the committee shall be elected by and from among the members on the committee.

Purpose and Function: The Promotion, Tenure, and Retention Committee shall review the Promotion and Tenure files for all applicants for promotion and tenure, and vote and record the committee’s recommendation, which will be forwarded on to the Chair of the Department. As well, the Committee shall review Bargaining Unit Faculty on progress toward promotion and/or tenure as mandated by the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

B. Professional Development Leave Committee

Composition: The Professional Development Leave Committee shall be composed of a Bargaining Unit Faculty member from each of the four academic areas of the department, either a voluntary appointment as discussed above, or, appointed by the Chair if there exist no volunteers from a given Area. The Chair of the committee shall be elected by and from among the members on the committee.

Purpose and Function: The Professional Developmental Leave Committee shall review all applications for a professional development leave. The committee’s recommendations will be forwarded to the Chair of the Department.

C. Curriculum Committee

Composition: The Curriculum Committee shall be composed of a Bargaining Unit Faculty from each area of the four academic areas of the department, either a voluntary appointment as discussed above, or appointed by the Chair if there exist no volunteers from a given Area, as well as the department’s Managing Director. The Chair of the committee shall be elected by and from among the Bargaining Unit Faculty members on the committee.

Purpose and Function: The Curriculum Committee’s duties include, but are not limited to, reviewing course modifications and course inventory requests, changes in admission or graduation requirements, and reviewing all potential new degrees or curriculums. All recommendations from this committee intended to be sent on to the College Curriculum Committee should be first presented at a department faculty meeting before being forwarded to the Chair.

D. Budget Review Committee

Composition: The Budget Review Committee shall be composed of a Bargaining Unit Faculty from each of the four academic areas of the department, either a voluntary appointment as discussed above, or appointed by the Chair if there exist no volunteers from a given Area, as well as the department’s Managing Director. The Chair of the committee shall be elected by and from among the Bargaining Unit Faculty members on the committee. Two of the Bargaining Unit Faculty shall serve for two years.

Purpose and Function: The Budget Review Committee is charged with reviewing the department’s annual academic, production, and foundation budgets, for suggesting methods to better utilize resources, and for recommending a prioritization of expenditures for the department. Based on a previous year’s expenditures, the committee may recommend changes to amounts allocated to a particular item in the department’s academic, production, and/or foundation budgets. The committee shall recommend to the department Chair short-term and long-term goals as they relate to the financial needs of the department. At least once a year, the committee will publish a written “Scholarship Expenditures Report,” detailing departmental expenditures by Area on student scholarships, and a written “Fundraising Report,” detailing the department’s fundraising activities including all funds raised by the department, the specific sources of those funds, and how those funds have been spent. The “Season Report” will offer financial details regarding the box-office receipts, expenses, profit and/or loss, and attendance for every mainstage and studio production, along with a brief analysis of what this data may suggest about our audiences, our productions, or our future seasons.

E. Scholarship/Awards Committee

Composition: The Scholarship/Awards Committee shall be composed of a Bargaining Unit Faculty from each area of the four academic areas of the department, either a voluntary appointment as discussed above, or appointed by the Chair if there exists no volunteers from a given Area. The Chair of the committee shall be elected by and from among the members on the committee.

Purpose and Function: The Scholarship/Awards Committee is charged with making recommendations regarding all student scholarships to the Chair. At least once a year, the committee will publish a written “Scholarship Awards Report” which will indicate all the scholarships which have been offered and/or accepted for the academic year, broken down by source, category, amount, area of the department, and student. As well, this committee will oversee any student awards which the department may choose to give out at the end of the academic year.

F. Area Coordinators Committee

Composition: The Area Coordinators Committee is composed of the coordinators of each Area, or a designee appointed by each coordinator. The Chair of the committee shall be elected by and from among the members on the committee.

Purpose and Function: This committee is charged with presenting and/or discussing any Area issues, events, questions, procedures, or concerns that arise which may impact other Areas and/or the department’s academic and/or artistic missions and standards. The purpose of this committee essentially is to make certain that the separate Areas don’t inadvertently work at cross-purposes. The committee is to also assure that important directives from the Dean's office are communicated to area faculty and staff. The Department Chair may also request that the Area Coordinators Committee look into any specific issues which may affect the whole department and require recommended action.

G. Bylaws Committee

Composition: The Bylaws Committee shall be composed of an a Bargaining Unit Faculty from each area of the four academic Areas of the department, either a voluntary appointment as discussed above, or appointed by the Chair if there are no volunteers from a given Area, as well as a non-voting member from the Unclassified Staff, selected by the Unclassified Staff. The Chair of the committee shall be elected by and from among the members on the committee.

Purpose and Function: The Bylaws Committee is charged with reviewing the department bylaws toward the aim of making necessary changes or amendments, and for reviewing any proposed changes which any Faculty or Staff may forward to this committee. The Bylaws Committee will also oversee any balloting which may result in a faculty recommendation for Artistic Director.

H. Season Selection Committee

Composition: The Season Selection Committee shall be composed of all Bargaining Unit Faculty and Staff who wish to participate in season selection, as well as the Artistic Director and, if not serving as Artistic Director, the Chair. The Artistic Director shall serve as chair of this Committee. The Artistic Director should attend all meetings and schedule meetings at a time when most full-time faculty and staff can attend.

Purpose and Function: This committee will advise the Artistic Director as to considerations regarding possible titles for the mainstage and studio season, artistic concepts or directions, the implications of individual titles or combinations of titles, artistic preferences of individual Faculty or Staff members, and participation in the American College Theatre Festival. This committee must be convened at least four times each academic year and will make recommendations to the Artistic Director. The Artistic Director is responsible for making certain that accurate minutes of these meetings are kept and circulated in a timely manner. Before any announcement is made to the public regarding a mainstage season, the Artistic Director must first present the season for discussion at a full departmental meeting. At that time, a vote to recommend the season will be conducted, the quantitative results of which must appear in the minutes of the meeting. Both bargaining unit faculty and unclassified staff are eligible to vote; but a simple majority of the bargaining unit faculty may request that the votes be tallied separately.

SECTION XI. Amendments

A. After review of the Bylaws committee, proposed amendments to this document that are signed by at least one-third of the Bargaining Unit Faculty shall be considered at a full department faculty meeting and voted upon at a subsequent meeting of the bargaining unit faculty.

B. Ratification of amendments requires a majority vote of all Bargaining Unit Faculty and approval by the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and the Faculty Governance Committee.